Your definition of misogyny seems to only encompass conscious and declared hatred of the opposite sex. By that definition, any man who want to fucks a woman and spends time wooing her cannot consciously be a sexist be a sexist at that moment.

Sooo?

Is your definition of racism that which applies only to people who use the N-word and support lynching black people who attempt to vote? Can no other people be racist? We all know that racism is much more nuanced that that. Why can you not accept that sexism is as well?

I am willing as an (apparently) white person to grant that this whiteness affords me certain privileges (providing especially if I have the economic privileges as well that often accompany whiteness) and that I may not be an expert on racism. Duh? Because I am white.

However, it constantly astonishes me that some men think they are experts on misogyny directed against women. I am willing to concede that Brightstar is an expert in misogyny. I am willing to concede that MereMortalMale and Parson Jim expertly direct their misogyny. Do you wish me to declare you an expert?

I think not. Neither virtue, nor you, nor any other guy is much of an expert on the many nuances that the hatred of femaleness can take. Nor do you know much about the casualties.

To quote my brothers when they and I were children: "Yuk. Girls' germs." But I suppose that they were just being little boys. Boys will be boys and cultural context doesn't matter.

In the infamous Palin-bustier article, the author was ... well ... just being a boy.

"You're mistaking justification for an explanation. There is no justification for sexism, merely an understanding of how and where it occurs (that is, an explanation)."

I understand the difference quite well, sir. But I'm not the one mistaking justification for an explanation here. It appears, however, that angrypoodle is. I've been asking her if she thinks the sexism I've referenced here at Salon is justified. And instead of a simple yes or no, I'm getting what feels like some slippery rational for why it might be okay in some cases. I really don't need an explanation of how and where sexism occurs. I'm not in third grade. I just want to know if she thinks if what has been expressed here at Salon is wrong. Period.

Another evasive, convoluted answer. "Do you think the sexism I've referenced here at Salon is wrong?" It's really not a difficult question. A simple yes or no would have done beautifully. But that's okay, I know when to move on. Have a nice day.

Without going back and re-reading (because I'm on a dodgy UK internet connection), I do recall Angry Poodle clearly saying sexism is not justified.

Then he/she expressed what we liberals call a nuanced view. It does not seek to justify, but merely to put something into perspective. Getting mugged in a dark alley is unjustifiable. But would it matter if the dark alley was populated by a bunch of starving orphans? Understanding the complexity of a situation, and not merely one aspect that you declare WRONG (and stop all analysis there), is one major thing that divides liberals from right wing authoritarians.

I fully expect that one day within the next 10 years, the barbs republicans and the rest of us will be throwing at each other will come in the form of grenades and rockets. I do not relish that idea (and in fact, I will certainly have relocated myself and my family before that happens). At that point, the articles in Salon about Palin will be irrelevant. In fact, I'd say they already are.

It's wrong, the sexism you're describing.

As is driving 37 mph in a 35 mph zone is wrong.

As is driving 105 mph in a 15 mph School Zone is even more wrong.

Clear enough? :)

It's wrong, the sexism you're describing.

As is driving 37 mph in a 35 mph zone is wrong.

Yes, perfect illustration.

Meanwhile, I have no intention of joining the Palin Pity Party just because Joan Walsh drove 37 in a 35. There are infinitely larger issues.

It's worked here on this board to some extent.

Making accusations of "sexism" and "misogyny" the issue, rather than Palin's record. Turning the entire discussion into a pity party for her, deflecting and redirecting from what actually matters:

Her record, her policy ideas, her political philosophy, her knowledge about essential issues.

It's an excellent strategy. Takes focus off of her obvious lack of credentials for the job, and makes her into a victim, a martyr for the conservative cause.

Well done!! Well done!!

Trouble is, smart adults just won't fall for it. At least not for more than a few minutes.

Palin is the epitome of an empty suit. And, ya see, that has nothing to do with her sex. Cuz the conservative movement is filled MOSTLY with men in empty suits. Palin's just one more. She has nothing to recommend her for higher office. No good ideas, no political philosophy beneficial to 99% of America, no essential knowledge about key issues, and she just keeps confirming all of that, over and over and over again.

You can whine all you want about how she's supposedly being persecuted, but that doesn't change who she is, what she knows, or what she would do once in office. It's just your strategy to keep people from focusing on those core things.

It aint gonna work. You can stomp your feat all you want, hold your nose until you go blue in the face, pout and whine and moan and cry, and it's not going to change the facts.

She's not qualified to be president, and her ideas are dangerously wrong for America. Period.

One thing that has been made clear, and I am pretty sure that you would agree with me, is that it is pretty easy to inadvertently venture past satire or humor into sexism.

In Joan's first article on Palin's resignation, I wrote "Is Trig's real father the first dude, inquiring minds want to know."

When I had written that line I had meant for it to be funny to people who would find insults and satire hurled at Palin funny. Never for a moment did I consider that my attempt at humor would be considered sexist, and certainly it was not my intent to be sexist, but some people claim they were offended.

I don't think anyone in the political spectrum would find anything untoward in a satire bit on John Edwards in gimp or BDSM master gear, and I didn't find anything sexist with the obvious satire of Palin in dominatrix gear (the whole article was about how the right had responded to the blatantly sexed-up Palin with BDSM slave like adoration).

Some things are obvious satire and attempts at jokes, and no one wants to worry about their obvious attempts at jokes possibly being declared as sexist.

I'm not a sexist, XH isn't a sexist, and neither is David Letterman, or anyone else who made obvious attempts at jokes at Palin's expense.

Were those jokes in bad taste? Yes, but the world is not going to be much fun if we can't make tasteless jokes at high profile celebrities' expense, and Palin and her children are high profile celebrities (and Palin's children can thank mommy for making them high profile celebrities).